This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

The distribution of subjects between ES and ERS among the groups differed considerably, as grouping allocated 32 subjects to ES group 2, but only 2 to ERS group 2. The discriminative accuracy between the ES (AUC 73.2%, 95% CI [64.2, 82.2]) and ERS (AUC 72.0%, 95% CI [63.1, 81.0]) for dementia risk showed no significant difference. Without consideration of the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio in ES grouping, the optimal cut-off of the ES shifted to ≥2. The ERS showed advantages over the ES in test interpretation with comparable overall test performance, as fewer cases were allocated to the intermediate risk group. The established cut-off of ≥2 can be maintained for the ERS, whereas it must be adjusted for the ES when determining the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio.

Key findings

The distribution of subjects between ES and ERS among the groups differed considerably, as grouping allocated 32 subjects to ES group 2, but only 2 to ERS group 2.
The discriminative accuracy between the ES (AUC 73.2%, 95% CI [64.2, 82.2]) and ERS (AUC 72.0%, 95% CI [63.1, 81.0]) for dementia risk showed no significant difference.
Without consideration of the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio in ES grouping, the optimal cut-off of the ES shifted to ≥2.
The ERS showed advantages over the ES in test interpretation with comparable overall test performance, as fewer cases were allocated to the intermediate risk group.
The established cut-off of ≥2 can be maintained for the ERS, whereas it must be adjusted for the ES when determining the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Participants154
Effect sizeAUC 73.2; AUC 72.0
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	154 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37742651)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	31 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total	55 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Utz, J., Olm, P., Jablonowski, J., Siegmann, E.-M., Spitzer, P., Lewczuk, P., et al. (2023). Reconceptualization of the Erlangen Score for the Assessment of Dementia Risk: The ERlangen Score. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230524

Vancouver

Utz J, Olm P, Jablonowski J, Siegmann E.-M, Spitzer P, Lewczuk P, et al. Reconceptualization of the Erlangen Score for the Assessment of Dementia Risk: The ERlangen Score. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2023. doi:10.3233/jad-230524. PMID: 37742651.

BibTeX

@article{utz2023-37742651,
  author  = {Utz, Janine and Olm, Pauline and Jablonowski, Johannes and Siegmann, Eva-Maria and Spitzer, Philipp and Lewczuk, Piotr and Kornhuber, Johannes and Maler, Juan Manuel and others},
  title   = {{Reconceptualization of the Erlangen Score for the Assessment of Dementia Risk: The ERlangen Score}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-230524},
  pmid    = {37742651},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230524}
}

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also in Biomarkers

119 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →